SpaceX

I wish them the best—after all, there are retirement funds entangled with some of this…depending upon who you talk to.

The only thing good to happen recently was Wall Street Bets ruining the plans of a few moneychangers.
 
Both the US retirement accounts and public pension funds regularly have massive financial hits from high market volatility, hidden investment fees and a very high reliance on high-risk alternate investments.

While individual 401(k) accounts depend heavily on broader market investment both are increasingly turning to complex, opaque, and highly leveraged assets in pursuit of higher yields.

If you have either, you will be getting SpaceX and all the other upcoming mega IPO's sooner or later.

You Can Ignore AI Giants Like SpaceX, But Your 401(k) Won't

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/spacex-index-funds-elon-musk_n_6a2ddc97e4b0ba7a1fedef8d

Add to the above,

Social Security’s 2032 deadline puts a 22% cut on the table

https://fortune.com/2026/06/12/social-security-2032-deadline-benefit-cut-congress/

Regards,
 
Last edited:
@overscan (PaulMM) Can we get a separate thread for the SpaceX financial stuff please? Other than the implications of the extra funding who invests and how the IPO and subsequent market watch of the company is going has no bearing on the Aviation and Space discussions of SpaceX.
 
SpaceX’s financial position isn’t a separate curiosity — it directly shapes what the company can build, how fast it can iterate, and which programs survive or are cancelled.

Starship, Raptor production, launch cadence, pad upgrades, and long‑term architecture all depend on capital flows. When funding expands or contracts, it immediately affects engineering timelines and outcomes and stock prices.

Because of that, the financial side is part of the same trajectory.

What was the IPO about................Money.

Regards,
 
Michel Van said:
USSF take what work, this is for Moment Falcon 9 / Heavy
Once Starship/Superheavy is operational, the USSF will take that also.
Click to expand...
Would be nice to see a big rocket out of there. SLC-6 was going to be for the Shuttle at one time but then they decided not to.
 

Attachments

  • 4891a.jpg
    4891a.jpg
    92.6 KB · Views: 28
  • enterprise.jpg
    enterprise.jpg
    2.5 MB · Views: 28
Byeman said:
Delta IV Heavy was a big rocket. The same size payloads as the shuttle.
Click to expand...
The Shuttle took itself to orbit every time too. Don't see the Delta IV being able to do that. Stack a loaded Shuttle on top of a Delta IV and it's not even getting off the pad, assuming it didn't just crumple under the load.
 
Sferrin said:
Would be nice to see a big rocket out of there. SLC-6 was going to be for the Shuttle at one time but then they decided not to.
Click to expand...
SLC-6 original build for Titan IIIM for M.O.L program
Then rebuild for Shuttle operation, then happen Challenger, USAF abandon it
In 1990s SLC-6 modified for Delta IV Heavy.
And now rebuild for Falcon 9/ Heavy.
 
Michel Van said:
SLC-6 original build for Titan IIIM for M.O.L program
Then rebuild for Shuttle operation, then happen Challenger, USAF abandon it
In 1990s SLC-6 modified for Delta IV Heavy.
And now rebuild for Falcon 9/ Heavy.
Click to expand...
Yep. By "big" I mean something more than Titan IVB, Delta IV, and Falcon Heavy. NG or Starship.
 
Sferrin said:
Yep. By "big" I mean something more than Titan IVB, Delta IV, and Falcon Heavy. NG or Starship.
Click to expand...
Don't worry what ever will be NEW ARMSTRONG by Blue Origin it will be BIG
Reaction of USSF: Shut up and take my money...
 
Michel Van said:
Reaction of USSF: Shut up and take my money...
Click to expand...
Not really. USAF/NRO/USSF has always had the ability to contract for larger rockets. There just isn't a need for it. USAF and NRO are moving towards larger constellations of small satellites vs big ones. They have ordered larger fairings (>5m) and longer (with > than 40 foot barrel sections) but have yet to. Only 2.4m mirrors have been used. Vulcan could have been build with a larger fairing, but there was no requirement by the USAF/NRO/USSF,
 
https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/
June 21 Falcon 9 • Starfall Demo
Launch time: Window opens at 6:43 a.m. EDT (1043 UTC)
Launch site: SLC-40, Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida

A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket will launch a demo mission for its new re-entry vehicle called Starfall. Documents filed with the Federal Aviation Administration describe Starfall as “a cylindrical shaped capsule approximately 0.75 meters (2.5 feet) tall with a diameter of 3.1 meters (10.2 feet), weighing approximately 2,100 kilograms (4,600 pounds), and capable of carrying 1,000 kilograms (2,200 pounds) of payload, for a total weight of 3,100 kilograms (6,800 pounds).” SpaceX requested to perform two Starfall re-entries in the Pacific Ocean, but it’s unclear if two spacecraft will be launched on this mission.

Updated: June 17
Click to expand...
 
Forest Green said:
How exactly would a manned-Mars mission be based on a proven concept?
Click to expand...
The objection's sorta tautological, isn't it? 'We shouldn't do it because we haven't.'

A centrifuge module was proposed and deleted from the ISS plan. It wasn't anything 2001-like but more like a dry washing machine, I gather. Various plants and animals could be raised under different g-equivalents and their development studied. A real missed opportunity, but it's never too late...
 
Brett Davidson said:
The objection's sorta tautological, isn't it? 'We shouldn't do it because we haven't.'

A centrifuge module was proposed and deleted from the ISS plan. It wasn't anything 2001-like but more like a dry washing machine, I gather. Various plants and animals could be raised under different g-equivalents and their development studied. A real missed opportunity, but it's never too late...
Click to expand...
The concern with the centrifuge module was that vibrations could impact zero-G experiments going on in other parts of the station. Given the number of commercial station and man-tended concepts, a station dedicated to reduced-gravity research or manufacturing would make more sense.
 
Byeman said:
Not for improvements to common infrastructure like bridges and roads.
Click to expand...
"For their own." Launch pads, support facilities, etc. Bridges and roads? If it's needed the money will come. Either from the taxpayer or SpaceX. The machine isn't going to stop over quibbling about a road.
 
Sferrin said:
"For their own." Launch pads, support facilities, etc. Bridges and roads? If it's needed the money will come. Either from the taxpayer or SpaceX. The machine isn't going to stop over quibbling about a road.
Click to expand...
The issue isn't pads and support buildings, that has been user funded. The issue is basic infrastructure.
NASA can't take money from SpaceX for construction like bridges, roads, power lines etc.
 
Byeman said:
The issue isn't pads and support buildings, that has been user funded. The issue is basic infrastructure.
NASA can't take money from SpaceX for construction like bridges, roads, power lines etc.
Click to expand...
Couldn't SpaceX donate it or does that raise ethical issues? (Maybe that's part of the reason for the Louisiana thing.)
 
Sferrin said:
Couldn't SpaceX donate it or does that raise ethical issues? (Maybe that's part of the reason for the Louisiana thing.)
Click to expand...
Money given to a government agency goes into the General Treasury Fund.
 
The K2 said:
Sad to watch the video. I would have loved to see shuttle launches from Vandenberg.
Click to expand...

I don't know why they didn't launch at least one Shuttle mission from Vandenberg AFB just as a proof-of-principle flight and mission.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom